or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Having Trouble with Correct Size of Kastle MX88
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Having Trouble with Correct Size of Kastle MX88

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
I am 54 years old, 5'4" and about 145lbs. Looking at a pair of the new Kastle MX88's for mostly east coast riding. They have a 158 and a 168 size that I am not sure what would be best for me. I normally ski a 160 frontside ski which comes to the top of my head (without boots on). Therefore, the 158 would be at the top of my forehead and probably middle with boots on while the 168's will be about 3.5 inches above my head. There is s lot of confusion as to correct sizing for these wide skiis - some say go larger, others say go shorter. I understand that the longer = more float and better for open terrain, while the shorter is better for trees and tight turns. The major problem for me is whether the longer ski will be harder for me to handle. Appreciate any help. Thanks.
post #2 of 20
My Guess:

145 lbs East coast = RX at 160, MX78 at at 160.

West Coast = MX88 at 168, MX98 at 174


Longer skis would not be harder to handle if you know what to do with them, except in tight moguls or very tight trees. If this is an addition to your quiver then go ahead and get the MX88 at 168, otherwise it seems like the wrong ski.

Edited for correct produced lengths
post #3 of 20
Get the 158cm MX88, here in the east you'll want quickness more than stability. A mid-160 length would be 'ideal' but the 158cm will work great. 3 1/2 inches over your head is too long for eastern trees (unless you happen to be short for your weight... which you arfe not).
post #4 of 20
hey, i suggest the 158. it is super quick under feet, and being used to a 160 lenght, that is more appropriate.
comparing the 158 and the 168 lenght in characteristics, the 158 is slightly softer, working better for lighter skiers. it has also more turn radius. the 168 at your size will be more stable, but still be easy to ski. the mx88s in general have a broad range, being fun on groomers, and more fun offpiste.
post #5 of 20
Thread Starter 

MX88 158 vs 168

Thanks for the suggestion. By the way, I did get a chance to speak with several people at Kastle. Seems they are all pushing me towards the 168 - more versatile in powder and more stabel. As far as difficulty, they said that the 168 would not be any more diffcult or challanging than the 158 - other than turn radius. Also, one Kastle employee told me that his 5'3", 110 lb wife rides the 168. With that said, I looked at the 3 pair of frontside carvers I have and wondered if I am bets to go with the 168 as complementing my quiver!! ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny bianco View Post
hey, i suggest the 158. it is super quick under feet, and being used to a 160 lenght, that is more appropriate.
comparing the 158 and the 168 lenght in characteristics, the 158 is slightly softer, working better for lighter skiers. it has also more turn radius. the 168 at your size will be more stable, but still be easy to ski. the mx88s in general have a broad range, being fun on groomers, and more fun offpiste.
post #6 of 20
I would go for the 168, because you would then have less overlap. If you know what to do the 168 will be fine. If you don't know what to do you will soon learn.
post #7 of 20
Thread Starter 

OUCH!!

Since this will be my first longer ski, I am afraid to ask what will I learn!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
I would go for the 168, because you would then have less overlap. If you know what to do the 168 will be fine. If you don't know what to do you will soon learn.
post #8 of 20
FWIW - I'd also say 158, but if you get the 168, you'll probably live.
post #9 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlG View Post
Since this will be my first longer ski, I am afraid to ask what will I learn!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlG View Post
the 3 pair of frontside carvers I have a
What length and model of volkls and Blizzard do you have?
168 may seem long to you, but it's not that long. I suspect you may well learn not to fight the skis, but to use efficient control moves to direct the skis and let them supply the forces needed to maneuver.
post #10 of 20
Thread Starter 

Dont Want To Fight

I have Volkl Allstars 160 top of forehead with hoes off and Blizzard Magnum 8.1 163 top of my head with shoes off. Was told that the Kastle MX88 at 158 size is more like what I ski. Given the fact that I will use these less frequently on the anticipated powder days in the east, most feel this size would be best for manuvering. The MX88 168's are a good 3 inches above my head with shoes off. This has been frustrating as many have given their advice and it seems that 80% say stay at my top of forehead level with the 158 while 20% say that the loger ski will be more stable for fast powder runs. Just was concerened that I have never skied with skis this long and wondered if I am better staying where i have been most comfortable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
What length and model of volkls and Blizzard do you have?
168 may seem long to you, but it's not that long. I suspect you may well learn not to fight the skis, but to use efficient control moves to direct the skis and let them supply the forces needed to maneuver.
post #11 of 20
Since you already have allstars at 160, I suspect you will be using the Kästles for deep snow days. You will be skiing deep snow, and tracked out snow and crud piles by the end of the day. For this purpose you are better off with the longer skis.
Check out this thread, especially post 5 (mine) http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...ghlight=volant

BTW I weigh 165 lbs.
post #12 of 20

Kastle MX78 v MX88

Hi,

I've wrestled with a similar decision over length (I'm similar in height and weight to Carl, an inch taller, a little lighter but a decade younger so watch this space). I'm looking for a new ski for a trip to the US (Utah (Deer Valley and surrounds) and Colorado (Aspen/Snowmass) in February (I'm from Australia).

I've decided to go shorter just so I can play a bit more in the trees, and on the bumps on Ajax and take on a few tighter spots high at Snowmass. If we get some really epic days I'll probably hire something longer and fatter.

While I was in Courchevel and Zermatt earlier this year (will I never get tired of saying that!?), I demo'd a couple of skis which were then at opposite ends of the Kastle line: RX70 and MX98. Loved both but I want one ski. The MX78s and MX88s were so popular I couldn't get on them. But I saw and heard how good they were from others ahead of me in the demo queue, and those are the skis I'm interested in.

But which model? MX78 in 160 or MX88 in 158? For the past year I've skied Head iM78s in 165, but I spent a lot of the Australian season flapping about on a longer pair of fatter Palmer twintips (or faux twintips). I also have an older pair of Supersports that I think are 161. I think what I'm after is short and fat, but built to hold an edge in the firmer stuff as well.

Given where I'll be skiing in Feb - a mix of Deer Valley groomers (including a few days at a carving school) and (hopefully) some powder in the other Utah resorts; and then a real mixed bag during two weeks in Aspen (I love the bumps, but want to spend more time in The Cirque and tight places in the Hanging Valley than I did when I was last in Snowmass a few years ago).

Can anybody who has skied both shed some light on which is the more versatile? I appreciate I'll have to give up something either way, but any thoughts greatly appreciated.

Cheers,
Anthony
post #13 of 20
So, you already have the All-Stars and Magnum 8.1 (which will be a great crudbuster) for you, why the MX88? Not that it is not an awesome ski, it is. Why not something a bit more soft snow specific?
post #14 of 20
Because none of the others have that little TV screen in the tip. Or is it a GPS unit.
Anyway I bought the 78 in a 176
post #15 of 20

MX78 vs MX88

What was the main reason to go for the MX78 and not for the MX88? I'm thinking about the same because I have already GS - Skis (Fischer RS4 - 180) and fat skis (Mantra's - 177 and Gotama - 183). Nevertheless I'm struggling with the length on the ski (168 or 176). I heard that the 168 is giving already a great feedback. I'm 6'11" - 172lbs.
Thanks
Chris
post #16 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisMoped View Post
What was the main reason to go for the MX78 and not for the MX88? I'm thinking about the same because I have already GS - Skis (Fischer RS4 - 180) and fat skis (Mantra's - 177 and Gotama - 183). Nevertheless I'm struggling with the length on the ski (168 or 176). I heard that the 168 is giving already a great feedback. I'm 6'11" - 172lbs.
Thanks
Chris
168 would work better on smaller hills less than say 750', where more turns per skiing dollar are required.
176 would be my choice for wide-open spaces on western hills.

168 better on hardpack, 176 better on deep snow, especially if it's cut up and tracked out.
post #17 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisMoped View Post
What was the main reason to go for the MX78 and not for the MX88? I'm thinking about the same because I have already GS - Skis (Fischer RS4 - 180) and fat skis (Mantra's - 177 and Gotama - 183). Nevertheless I'm struggling with the length on the ski (168 or 176). I heard that the 168 is giving already a great feedback. I'm 6'11" - 172lbs.
Thanks
Chris
6'11?

176 not even a question.....
post #18 of 20

I have a similar question on the size of MX88s.  

 

About me:

Height/Weight: 6'0, 170 lbs

Ski days/year: 10-15 in the west, a couple of days in the midwest

Terrain I ski: A little bit of everything, groomers, powder when available, bumps and trees

Skier Level: 7-8

Current Ski: Nordica Hot Rod Nitrous 170 cm (to be replaced by MX88)

 

I had the pleasure of demoing the MX88 in the 168 length in Aspen last year.  My impression was the MX88s were every bit as great as I've read here on epic and I resolved to purchase them at the end of the season once prices came down.   The problem was I wasn't able to find any 168cm MX88s (even demoed/used) for less than ~$600.  I ended up purchasing 178cm MX88s when I came across a good deal on them but have been wondering if they would be too big for my build.  

 

Would I be better off with the 168s or would the 178s work well for me as well?

 

Thanks in advance for any advice!

post #19 of 20
Quote:
I'm 6'11" - 172lbs.

You have plenty of skis, you need to spend the money on cheeseburgers ! roflmao.gif

post #20 of 20

Nothing like a four year bump. wink.gif. IL, I'm 6', 165, ski the 178 (it's not made in a 176 BTW). At that length it's still nimble and super easy to initiate, no realistic upper speed limit, but likes its room to run. My western front side ski. My wife skis the 168 back here. You did fine. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Having Trouble with Correct Size of Kastle MX88